|HV 5091 

.H3 T5 
I Copy 1 




r hat 



iquor Question in Hawaii 
should be done about it ? 



<By LORRIN A. THURSTON 



FEB 14 1913 



The Liquor Question in Hawaii — What 
should be done about it? 



Paper read before the Honolulu Social Science Association 

• • © © © 

By LORRIN A. THURSTON 

• • • • • 

[Published by vote of the Social Science Association.] 



T 



HE method of handling the liquor question is always an important 
question in any community. It is always an especially important 
one in Hawaii. By reason of certain recent events, it is at present 
of more than usual importance. 

EVENTS WHICH HAVE BROUGHT PROHIBITION TO THE FRONT. 

Some of the events which have recently brought the subject into promi- 
nence are: 

1. The passage of a high license liquor law by the legislature of 1907, the 
administration of which is in the hands of a commission in each county, ap- 
pointed by the Governor. 

2. A pledge in the local Kepublican party platform at the election for the 
legislature in 1909 that no material changes would be made in the law of 1907. 

3. The deliberate, and almost successful, attempt of the liquor interests, 
during the session of the legislature in 1909, to eliminate from the law the main 
features of control vested in the several commissions, and the securing of a 
strong majority vote in the senate in favor of such amendment, notwithstanding 
the fact that the senate was overwhelmingly Eepublican and that the votes 
for the amendment were in plain violation of the party pledge. 

4. The recent open defiance by the Honolulu brewery of the law against 
Sunday sale of liquor. 

5. The quantity of socalled " rectified M whisky and other doctored liquors 
placed upon the market, and the open claim of leading members of the Liquor 
Dealers ' Association before the liquor commission that such "whisky" was 
no more harmful than the genuine article; with the apparent acquiesence of 
the commission in that view. At least no move has been made by it to prevent 
the sale of such beverages, although it has the full power so to do. 

6. The recent large number of deaths, in Honolulu, homicidal and other- 
wise, through the direct influence of alcoholic liquor — chiefly the "rectified" 
variety. 

7. The introduction into congress, entirely without local initiation, of a 
prohibition law applicable to the Territory of Hawaii. 






LIQUOR SENTIMENT IN HAWAII. 

The people of Hawaii may be divided into three classes, viz.: 

First — The liquor dealers, who know exactly what they want, and are work- 
ing incessantly to secure it — i. e., to increase the sale of liquor; 

Second — The pronounced prohibitionists — "the old guard " — who have ad- 
vocated the prohibition of the saloon on principle, without any definite expecta- 
tion of accomplishing that result; 

Third — The great mass of the people, who have been indifferent to the sub- 
ject; or, who have thought prohibition so improbable that it has not occurred 
to them as being a practical question, requiring any thought or action. 

A PROPOSITION FROM THE SKY. 

Suddenly, out of a clear sky, has come the most momentous proposition, as 
affecting Hawaii's future, that has loomed on the horizon since the Territory 
was organized. 

Congress, without initiation from Hawaii, has assumed active considera- 
tion of a bill which proposes at one fell swoop, to abolish all manufacture and 
dealing in alcoholic liquor, both at wholesale and retail, except for medicinal 
purposes, under the close supervision of the government. 

It is almost impossible to conceive of the widespreading consequences in 
and to Hawaii, if a bill of this character is passed and enforced. 

A brief historical resume of some of the events relating to the liquor ques- 
tion and of liquor legislation in Hawaii is essential to an intelligent understand- 
ing of the situation, and of the claims which the native Hawaiian has for special 
consideration at our hands. 

NO ALCOHOLIC LIQUOR IN ANCIENT HAWAII. 

Prior to the coming of white people to Hawaii in the latter part of the 
eighteenth century, alcoholic liquors were unknown to the Hawaiians. The only 
thing which they had approximating an intoxicant was dried awa root, which, 
mixed with water, made a drink which was rather . narcotic than intoxicating 
in its effects. 

The native Hawaiians took to alcoholic liquor like ducks to water, how- 
ever, and its effect upon them was like that of the microbe of a virulent dis- 
ease in virgin soil. Almost immediately after the process of distilling became 
known to them, stills were in use all over the Islands. It is related of Kame- 
hameha I. that, although he was a temperate man, he became drunk upon one 
occasion, and made such a fool of himself that he thereafter always used a 
wine glass upon which there was a mark from which to drink his liquor; filling 
it up to that mark, and under no circumstances drinking any more on that 
occasion. 

PROHIBITION BY KAMEHAMEHA. 

In 1818, about a year before his death, having become convinced thai* 
liquor was injuring his people, Kamehameha called a great council of all his 
chiefs on the Island of Hawaii, at Kailua, causing a large grass council house 
to be built for the express purpose of holding the meeting with his chiefs 
therein. Among other subjects be brought up for discussion was that of the 
manufacture and consumption of liquor. After due consideration with the 
chiefs, he said to them: 

"I COMMAND YOU EVERY ONE TO GO HOME, EACH TO 'YOUR OWN 
DISTRICT, AND DESTROY EVERY LIQUOR STILL WHICH YOU FIND. 
DISTILLING AND DRINKING LIQUOR ARE TABU FROM THIS TIME 
FORWARD." 



It is further related that the chiefs immediately returned home and carried 
cut the King's orders. The council house was thereupon, by the King's orders, 
torn down so that it might not be used for any other purpose, as an indication 
of the King's opinion of the importance of the occasion. 

THE LIQUOR QUESTION UNDER KAMEHAMEHA II. 

Kamehameha I. was succeeded by his son, Kamehameha II. He was a weak, 
dissolute man, devoting himself to riotous living and drunkenness. Under him 
all restraint upon the manufacture and use of alcoholic liquor disappeared, and 
the use of liquor became so general as to menace the very existence of the 
people. The King finally went to England, where, largely through the weak- 
ening of his constitution by his previous excesses, he died. 

PROHIBITION BY KAAHUMANU. 

After the death of Kamehameha II. , in 1824, Kaahumanu, the widow of 
Kamehameha I., and Eegent during the minority of Kamehameha III., decreed 
prohibition, and, with the absolute power of life and death that existed in £ha 
hands of the high chiefs, it was effectual to a great extent. 

Foreigners generally, including the British and American consuls, denied 
the right of the Hawaiian government to make laws applicable to foreigners. 
In spite of this opposition, the Eegent, the King and the chiefs joined in the 
passage and publication of an embryo penal code, applicable alike to foreigners 
and natives. One of these was as follows: 

WE FORBID THE SELLING OF RUM. 

"We forbid the selling of rum here. Whoever shall sell rum shall be im- 
prisoned." The word "rum" was used in a generic sense, meaning "alcoholic 
liquor." By 1829 the use of liquor by natives had almost ceased, the power 
of the chiefs at that time, over the common people, being very great. 

After the death of Ahumanu, in 1832, drunkenness again became rife, 
until the evil effects became so great that restrictive laws were passed in 1833. 
] 835, and 1838, culminating in the prohibition of the importation of spirituous 
liquors, in August, 1838. There was difficulty, however, in enforcing the law 
as against foreigners, they claiming the right to import liquors as a matter 
of trade and resenting any interference therewith as an infringement of their 
international rights. 

The government compromised, therefore, by allowing them to import wines, 
but maintained the prohibiting of stronger liquors. 

This legislation was resented by the liquor-dealing fraternity among the 
foreigners, and, led by the French consul, they continued to harass the govern- 
ment. 

A LIFELONG STRUGGLE BY KAMEHAMEHA III. FOR PROHIBITION. 

As is well known, the Kingdom of Hawaii made immense strides under 
Kamehameha III. Private titles to land were given to the people; laws were 
formulated and codified; courts were established; a liberal constitution promul- 
gated, and a complete constitutional government, consisting of cabinet and legis- 
lature with two houses, was established, with a liberal election law. 

DISREPUTABLE PREVENTION OF PROHIBITION BY FOREIGNERS. 

Although himself repeatedly the victim of overindulgence in liquor, during 
the entire period of his reign, from 1838 x to his death in 1854, a continuous 
struggle was maintained by him and his government to enact and enforce legis- 
lation prohibiting the importation, manufacture and sale of alcoholic liquors 
in Hawaii. That he did not succeed, was solely owing to the opposition of for- 
eigners, extending to the point of prevention by force of arms. France led in 
this disreputable policy. 'Not only did France refuse to permit the prohibition 



of liquor, but, in the course, and largely growing out of this opposition, it op- 
pressed the Hawaiian government in many ways and at many times. Among 
other aggressions, she landed troops, seized and dismantled the fort of Hono- 
lulu, spiking the guns. She seized and carried away the King's yacht, which 
was never returned, and compelled the government to pay the sum of $20,000 
in cash for damages for alleged insults. 

FRENCH AGRRESSION ABOLISHING AND PROHIBITING PROHIBITION 

OF ALCOHOLIC LIQUOR. 

The initiation of French persecution of Hawaii was under Captain 
Laplace of the French frigate L'Artemise, who arrived in Honolulu in 1839, 
the year after the enactment of the anti-liquor legislation. He immediately for- 
mulated a number of demands upon the Hawaiian government, among which 
was the one that French wines and liquors should be permitted to be imported 
into Hawaii and that no more than 5 per cent duty should be charged thereon. 

Under threat of force, he compelled the Hawaiian government to sign a 
treaty with France containing this provision, which reads as follows: 

"FRENCH MERCHANDISE, or known to be of French procedure (origin) 
AND ESPECIALLY WINES AND BEANDIES, SHALL NOT BE PEOHIBITED 
NOB PAY A HIGHEB DUTY THAN FIVE PER CENT AD VALOREM.' ' 

Naturally, all other nationalities demanded the same privileges that were 
accorded the French, and in short order free liquor was again in full blast 
throughout the Islands. 

FRENCH AGGRESSION A NIGHTMARE TO HAWAII. 

France and the French, and their possible aggression, became such a night- 
mare to the Hawaiian government and people that a formal cession of Hawaii 
to the United States was executed by the King and forwarded to Washington 
to go into effect in case the French attempted to seize the country. An Ameri- 
can and a Hawaiian flag were sewed together, with the American on top, with 
orders that the same should be hoisted in the palace yard the moment the French 
should attempt to land with intent to take possession. 

FRENCH PREVENTION OF PROHIBITION EXTENDED TO 1873. 

It was not until 1873 that the French veto of prohibition in Hawaii was 
ended, by the cancellation of that portion of the treaty by the Hawaiian govern- 
ment, France having, since 1839, compelled the admission of liquor into Hawaii, 
against the will of the Island government. 

DETAILS OF THE STRUGGLE FOR PROHIBITION BY KAMEHAMEHA HI 

The persistent attempt of Kamehameha III. and his chiefs to deliver his 
people from the evils of alcoholic liquor, in the face of the malignant hostility 
of an overwhelmingly powerful opponent, are worthy of some examination in 
detail, although the limits of this paper must exclude much that bears upon 
the subject. 

ANTI-LIQUOR LEGISLATION IN 1840. 

Notwithstanding the disastrous and humiliating results of the collision 
with France in 1839, and the difficulty of controlling the subject, when all the 
world could import liquor upon paying a duty of only 5 per cent., we find the 
King making another attempt to stem the tide of drunkenness by passing r 
new law in October, 1840, entitled: "LAW PROHIBITING THE MANUFAC 
TUBE AND USE OF INTOXICATING DRINKS." 

The preamble of the law throws a strong sidelight upon' the then condition 
relating to drunkenness. It is as follows: 



"In our inquiries after the best means of promoting the interests of the 
kingdom, it has appeared to us that an increase in the production of food is 
of great importance. Scarcity of food is, of course, a great evil to the country. 

"It is said that the present is a time of scarcity, and we therefore have 
been searching for the cause of it. One reason we ascertain to be the following: 
Articles of food, potatoes, sugar cane, melons and other things are taken and 
transformed into intoxicating drink; THE PEOPLE EEMAIN IN IDLENESS 
WITHOUT LABOR, IN CONSEQUENCE OF THEIR LYING DRUNK: 
WHEREFORE THE LAND IS GROWN OVER WITH WEEDS AND IS IM- 
POVERISHED. 

"In consequence of our desire to promote the order and welfare of the 
kingdom, we have assembled to reflect on the subject, and now enact this law." 
Then follow provisions prohibiting the manufacture of alcoholic liquor, and the 
furnishing or consumption of the same. 

ATTEMPT OF M. KEKUANAOA TO SECURE REDRESS FROM FRANCE. 

At this time M. Kekuanaoa, the father of Kamehameha V., then acting 
as Governor of the Island of Oahu, took upon himself to attempt to secure re- 
dress from France, and wrote a letter to the French premier on December 10, 
1841, the original of which, in Hawaiian, is on file in the Archives building in 
Honolulu. The following is a translation by John Wise: 

LETTER TO THE PREMIER OF FRANCE. 

Honolulu, Oahu, December 10, 18-41. 
To His Excellency M. Guizot, 

Premier of the Kingdom of France, 
Greeting: — 

" Having been informed that your Excellency is a kind and an upright man, 
and have under your charge the settlement of all foreign matters, I therefore 
am most desirous of bringing to your knowledge some of the difficulties we are 
now experiencing in Hawaii. 

LIQUOR THREATENS EXISTENCE OF HAWAIIAN PEOPLE. 

"ONE OF THE DIFFICULTIES THAT IS NOW THREATENING OUR 
VERY EXISTENCE IS THE IMPORTATION OF LIQUORS FROM FOREIGN 

LANDS. In the days when this people were still in the dark, foreign liquors 
were in common use here. The men and women, chiefs and common people all 
drank liquor from day to day. Before the importation of foreign liquors we 
drank fermented sweet potatoes, mountain apples, watermelons, sugar cane and 
ti root. Our condition then, however, was much better than now. After the 
importation of foreign liquors, riots became common and our condition most 
critical. Since then, and during the time of Kaahumanu L. a little light dawned 
upon us, and we then learned to write, had schools, and were taught the word of 
God, which had been brought here and which was the cause of our enlightenment. 

PROHIBITION BY KAAHUMANU. 

"The chiefs through this enlightenment then realized the evils of drink, and 
Kaahumanu and others prohibited the use of this great cause of evil — the selling 
of liquor as well as the use of it. This action restored peace amongst us. 

FREE LIQUOR AGAIN. 

"In the year of the Lord 1832, Kaahumanu I. died, and riot again became 
rampant because the cause of our peace had gone to her rest, and we once more 
were made to realize the great evil of drink. It was at Oahu here that thQ 
worst danger was, however, realized, where most of the foreigners who were 
selling liquor had their shops. This continued to the year of the Lord 1838. 



PROHIBITION AGAIN IN 1838. 

"The chiefs, realizing the danger if no restraint was placed on the traffic, 
again sought to make new laws which would again restore that peace we had 
formerly experienced. They enacted some very widespread and stringent laws, 
and the use of all kinds of liquors was prohibited by the new Premier, Kaahu- 
manu II. No liquors were allowed to be landed except wine. 

PEACE ONCE MORE, UNTIL FRANCE FORCED LIQUOR ON HAW An. 

"Under this law we again obtained peace, which continued to the year 
1839, when Kaahumanu II. died. In the same year, in the month of July, a 
vessel of your country called the Arteniise, under Captain Laplace, arrived. 

LIQUOR FORCED ON HAWAII THROUGH FEAR. 

"At this time the chiefs were again forced to consent to the landing of for- 
eign liquors. This consent was obtained, I wish to inform you, through fear 
of war. It was not because the chiefs wanted liquor that this consent was given 
to that treaty with Captain Laplace, which allowed the importation of the vile 
stuff, but because of fear; the chiefs had realized their weakness and also the 
smallness of their number, and were therefore unable to oppose your great and 
powerful nation. The laws restricting this vile stuff were again crumbled, and 
from that time until this day riots and evils of all kinds have become frequent 
in our land. Vessels from all countries are bringing liquors and landing them 
on our shores, because of this treaty with Captain Laplace, which provides that 
'French merchandise, or known to be of French manufacture, wines and brandies 
shall not be prohibited, nor pay a higher duty than five per cent, ad valorem.' 

OTHER FOREIGNERS AS WELL. 

"Other foreigners, such as Englishmen and Americans, have joined in de- 
mand that they be given the same privileges in their treaties. Our country, 
therefore, is full of liquor and drunkenness and we are unable to stamp out 
the evil. 

RESTRICTION, EVEN, FRUSTRATED BY FRANCE. 

"Our chiefs, however, have looked into the enactment of new laws to 
overcome the evils of liquor, and we are trying to adjust the retail sale of the 
article; but have not carried the thing to that point of success as anticipated 
by us, because of the continual interference made by Dudoit, the French consul. 
If we fine a retail liquor dealer because of some breach of the law, he will then 
step in, and with anger say to us, 'You have broken the treaty,' and will then 
lend his influence to support the retail dealer, and thus put our efforts to 
naught. 

"It is our opinion that this action on our part does not constitute a breach 
of the treaty, because the treaty does not refer to the retail dealing of the 
articles, but only to the importation of the same. 

FEAR FURTHER AGGRESSION BY FRANCE. 

"Therefore we have been put to great inconvenience by your consul, be- 
cause of the fear that we may again fall in his disfavor and another French 
warship be sent here to again oppress this weak and small nation. * * * * 

AN APPEAL FOR JUSTICE. 

"Because of these things, our troubles are never at an end, and we there- 
fore inform you (great and kind man that you are) of them, in order that you 
may have a true knowledge of the facts, and thereby be enabled to do away 
our difficulties. I believe it best that a new treatv be made and this one dis- 



carded because it is so onesided. I also believe that a new consul should be 
appointed, one who is kind and upright, that we may prosper and this nation 
made like unto your own, and also that the $20,000 which was taken by Laplace 
be returned. 

"I trust that the people of all nations shall be at peace in the future. We 
realize we are still ignorant and wanting in many things, but we are earnestly 
striving to obtain knowledge and shall deem ourselves fortunate if the con- 
stant interference made by foreign nations should cease for all time. There 
are a number of foreigners here who are spreading false reports of us, and who 
are trying to get possession of the country without our permission, and thereby 
causing us no end of trouble. 

"With the greatest of respect to you and your King, I remain, your 
obedient servant, M. KEKUANAOA." 

APPEAL IS FRUITLESS. 

This pathetic appeal, by a child of savagery, to the most enlightened na- 
tion in Europe, fell on deaf ears. France continued her aggression and made 
them yet more onerous to bear. 

SECOND FRENCH TREATY— STILL FORCED LIQUOR ON HAWAII. 

Five years later, after continuous, but fruitless, effort to secure an amended 
treaty, France agreed to a revision, and on March 26, 1846, a new treaty was 
entered into, which cancelled the restriction of duties on liquors to five per 
cent., but it still compelled Hawaii to admit French liquors. 

The treaty clause upon this point is as follows: 

"French merchandise, or goods recognized as coming from the French 
dominions, shall not be prohibted, nor shall they be subject to an import duty 
higher than five per cent, ad valorem. Wines, brandies and other spirituous 
liquors are, however, excepted from this stipulation and shall be liable to such 
reasonable duty as the Hawaiian government may think to lay upon them, 
provided, always, that the amount of duty shall not be so high as absolutely 
to prohibit the importation of the said articles." 

ENGLAND JOINS FRANCE. 

Up to this time England and the other nations had remained in the back- 
ground, taking advantage of the dirty work of France under the "favored 
nation" doctrine, which permitted them to do whatever France could do; but 
England now came out from under cover, and took her turn at bullying Hawaii, 
an English naval captain hauling down the Hawaiian and hoisting the British 
flag over the Islands, and constituting himself and his officers the executive, 
legislative and judiciary departments of the government for a number of 
months. He was later ousted by his superior officer, but the British govern- 
ment evened up by demanding on its own behalf the same terms granted 
France, and a treaty was therefore signed with England, likewise prohibiting 
Hawaii from excluding English liquors. 

HAWAII'S NEXT MOVE. 

Hawaii was quick to take action upon even this meager concession. The 
very next month, on April 27, 1846, legislation was passed which struck at the 
liquor traffic in four different directions, viz.: 

First — It raised the duties on imported liquors, on a sliding scale, with 
a minimum of $10 a gallon. 

Second— IT MADE IT A PENAL OFFENSE TO "SELL OE FURNISH 
SPIRITUOUS LIQUORS TO ANY NATIVE SUBJECT OF THESE ISLANDS." 



8 

Third — It directed that, as soon as subsisting treaties would permit, the 
minister of interior should be empowered, "in case of the modification or 
annulment of any subsisting treaty stipulation entered into by this govern- 
ment with any other nation, regarding the sale of spirituous liquors in this 
kingdom (which may God grant), to issue his proclamation, discontinuing, 
prospectively, the vending thereof at retail, and the further issuing of licenses 
for that purpose." 

It further provided that "So soon as the modification of existing treaties 
will permit, the minister of finance shall recommend to His Majesty in privy 
council, the measures which, in his estimation, may seem best calculated to 
repress and effectually prevent the importation of spirituous and intoxicating 
drinks of every description, either by prohibitory duties or by declaring them 
contraband of trade, and liable to confiscation; which recommendation, being 
adopted by His Majesty in privy council, and publicly announced by proclama- 
tion, signed by His. Majesty, and attested by the minister of finance, shall 
from the date to be fixed in said proclamation, have the binding force and 
efficacy of law. Whereupon, and not sooner, the minister of the interior shall, 
by his proclamation, discontinue, prospectively, the issuing of licenses for the 
wholesale and retail vending thereof." 

Fourth — It increased the penalty for distilling liquor in Hawaii to $1000, 
and imprisonment until paid. 

HAWAII'S DECLARATION OF PRINCIPLES. 

Thus did Hawaii declare her principles upon the subject of alcoholic liquor 
and formally put on record the fact that foreign powers alone forced her to 
permit the liquor traffic which was destroying her people. So far as she could 
do so, she prevented her people from using liquor; but with a market open to 
all the world, and liquor available at all principal points, the prohibition to 
natives was only partially effectual. 

With this legislation, the active struggle of the Hawaiian government, 
under Kamehameha III., to secure the exclusion of spirituous liquor from 
Hawaii, ceased. 

What more could he do? 

For seven years he had been harried and bullied by the two strongest gov- 
ernments in the world, and intoxicating liquors forced upon him and his people, 
all in the interest of the liquor business. He had done his best. He could 
do no more. 

Was ever there a more cowardly and disgraceful act of aggression by 
alleged civilized and Christian governments? If so. I have not heard of it. 

PROHIBITION ON OTHER ISLANDS. 

Only one further liquor statute was passed during the reign of Kameha- 
meha III. The liquor interests pressing for wider scope for their traffic by 
the issuance of licenses for the other islands, the King and the legislature took 
no chances that some easygoing official might grant it; but on the 20th of 
June, 1851, the legislature passed a joint resolution, which was approved by 
the King, as follows: 

" Whereas, There haA T e been numerous applications for places other than 
Honolulu for licenses to retail spirituous liquors; and, 

"Whereas, It is feared that greater evil will grow out of such licenses on 
other islands; therefore, be it 

"Resolved, That after the passage of this resolution it shall not be lawful 
to grant licenses for the retail of spirituous, including all wines and other intoxi- 
cating drinks, at any other place in the kingdom than Honolulu." 



KAMEHAMEHA IV. COMES TO THE THRONE. 

Kamehamelia III. died in 1854, aud was succeeded by Kamehameha IV. 
He was a genial, pleasant man, but was cursed by thirst for liquor. 

While in a drunken frenzy he shot and killed his private secretary, for 
whom he had great friendship. When he became sober, this act so preyed upon 
his mind that it was with the greatest difficulty that his advisers prevented 
his abdicating the throne. 

Upon another occasion it is alleged that while under the influence of liquor 
he so illtreated his only son, the Prince of Hawaii, that the latter died from 
the effects thereof, thereby cutting off the hopes of perpetuating the Kame- 
hamelia family, for no issue was thereafter born to any member of the Kame- 
haineha family. 

Though himself a victim of the policy of forcing liquor upon Hawaii, he, 
like his predecessor, recognized the evils arising from the use of intoxicating 
liquors, and steadfastly refused to sanction any modification of the existing 
anti-liquor legislation. 

FRANCE UNEASY, BUT QUIESCENT. 

The French were indignant at what they were pleased to term the "bad 
faith" of the Hawaiian government, in passing the laws above set forth, claim- 
ing that they were in violation of the spirit of the treaty which prohibited 
prohibition. 

THE UNITED STATES TAKES A HAND. 

Bullying tactics were resumed from time to time; but the attention of the 
United States government having been drawn to the matter, the French gov- 
ernment were warned to keep their hands off of Hawaii. 

Secretary of State Daniel Webster is reported to have said, upon hearing 
of the French actions: "I hope that the French will not take possession of 
Hawaii; but if they do, they will be dislodged, if my advice is taken, if it 
takes the whole power of the United States to do it. ' ' 

FRANCE AT IT AGAIN IN 1857. 

The American attitude put a quietus on the French in Hawaii for a num- 
ber of years; but they returned to the attack again in 1857, when a new treaty 
was negotiated, under which they demanded and obtained a provision fixing' the 
maximum duty on French brandy at $3 a gallon. 

The old clause, preventing the exclusion of French liquors, was continued 
in force, and remained binding upon Hawaii until 1873, when, for the first 
time, she felt able to brave French displeasure and denounce this provision of 
the treaty. 

KAMEHAMEHA IV. REITERATES PRINCIPLE OF PROHIBITION. 

Kamehamelia IV. testified to his belief in the principles embodied in the 
liquor legislation of 1846, above set forth, for, in 1859, the legislature com- 
piled a civil code, which he signed, in which was reenacted the law of 1846 
relating to wholesale and retail licenses, including the provision directing the 
ministers of the interior and finance to prohibit the importation and sale of 
liquor as soon as existing treaties would permit. This continued to be the law 
of Hawaii until the adoption of the Revised Laws by the legislature of 1905. 

KAMEHAMEHA V. PREVENTS FREE LIQUOR TO HAWAIIANS. 

Kamehameha IV. was followed on the throne by Kamehameha V. He was 
the strongest character in the line of the Kamehamehas, with the exception of 
the first one. Although he arbitrarily abrogated the constitution granted by 



10 

Kamehameha III. and arrogated powers to himself which had theretofore been 
granted to the people, he justified the acts by the claim that the liberalizing 
of the government had been too rapid for the good of the people; that they 
were unused to and unfit for the full self government conferred upon them by 
Kamehameha III. 

An illustration of his strength of character was that when the legislature 
proposed to repeal the law prohibiting the sale of liquor to native Hawaiians, a 
bill introduced for that purpose in 1865, although the proposition was exceed- 
ingly popular, and was favored by Messrs. Wyllie and Devarigny, the two lead- 
ing members of the cabinet, the King sent for the ministers and several lead- 
ing members of the legislature and told them that if they rjersisted in passing 
the bill he would veto it. He said: 

"I will never sign the death warrant of my people. " 

KALAKAUA " SIGNS THE DEATH WARRANT" OF HIS PEOPLE. 

The determined stand taken by the King prevented the question being 
again brought up for action until 1882, when, for political purposes, Kalakaua 
and leading representatives of the liquor interests in Honolulu, forced a repeal 
of this prohibitory law through the legislature, against the protest and opposi-. 
tion of every conservative influence in the country, thus ending the prohibition 
against selling or furnishing liquor to native Hawaiians which had been en- 
acted and enforced by every King and legislature, except Kamehameha II. 
since 1818. 

ACTION OF SUGAR PLANTERS. 

Evidence of the feeling of the responsible portion of the community upon 
this subject is the action taken by the Sugar Planters' Association as follows: 

The Planters Labor & Supply Company, the first formal organization of 
Hawaiian Sugar Planters, was organized in March, 1882. It included practically 
all the sugar planters of the day. 

The first board of trustees were: E. P. Adams, S. T. Alexander, J. C. Glade, 
A. S. Hartwell, W. G. Irwin, J. H. Paty and Z. S. Spaulding 

One of the first acts of the trustees was to appoint committees, one of 
which was upon legislation, consisting of: Alfred S. Hartwell, P. C. Jones, Jr., 
'John H. Paty, Jonathan Austin and James Woods. 

The committee filed their report on March 21st, 1882, recommending certain 
legislation, among other of which was: 

"The statutory prohibition of sales of spirituous or intoxicating liquors 
to Chinese or Polynesians." 

This recommendation was discussed at length on the 23rd and 24th of 
March, resulting in an amendment to the recommendation to the effect that it 
be made to cover total prohibition of importation and sale of liquor, and the 
following resolution was unanimously adopted by the association, viz: 

TOTAL PROHIBITION RECOMMENDED. 

"That the board of trustees be recommended to use their utmost endeavors 
to secure the passage of a law totally prohibiting the importation and sale of 
all spirituous or intoxicating liquors, except for medical and mechanical pur- 
poses, and that the board of trustees be further requested to consider what 
means are necessary for the better enforcement of the existing laws against 
the manufacture of liquor. ' ' 

The following members were among those who voted for this amendment, 
viz: S. T. Alexander, S. L. Austin, S. N. Castle. TV. H. Bailev, W. H. Eickard, 
T. K. Clark, H. A. Widemann. H. P. Baldwin, R. E. Hind. P. C. Jones .Jr.. E. P. 
\dams. W. G. Irwin. A. S. Hartwell. G. F. Holmes. H. Deacon, J. C. Glade. 
J. N. Wright, E, A. Macfie, Jr., Jonathan Austin, H. M. Whitney, W. O. Smith, 



11 

Jas. Woods, J. Spencer, L. S. Thompson, J. M. Alexander, 8. B. Dole, C. G-. 
Kvnnerslev, T. R. Walker, G.'N. Wilcox, E. A. Burchardt, W. W. Hall, F. A. 
Schaefer, J. H. Soper, A. H. Smith, C. F. Hart, W. F. Grant and W. E. Rowell. 

WHY THE PLANTERS FAVORED PROHIBITION. 

The initial number of the Planters' Monthly, published in April, 1882, con- 
tains an editorial concerning the foregoing resolution from which the following 
is an extract: 

" There is a strong temptation to speculate as to the reason why the 
Planters' Association unanimously adopted the resolution in favor of total 
prohibition against intoxicating liquors, both as to sale and importation. Xo 
doubt, as suggested, a large number of them not only do not believe in the 
principle of prohibition, but themselves use beer, wines and liquors- in moderate 
quantities, with no more injury than results from the use of beefsteak or toast 
and coffee, — men who have been used to the thing all their lives and whose 
views are not suddenly changed. There is no use in speaking of this action 
as a high moral stand. The planters themselves are the last who would have 
a wrong impression go abroad as to the moving springs of this action. The 
resolution against importing and selling intoxicating liquors was adopted, be- 
cause every planter was convinced that the increasing use of such liquors, 
among the laboring people particularly, is directly injuring the material inter- 
ests of the country, increasing crime, and taking away from the security of 
life and property. The method proposed to meet and overcome the evil, ap- 
pears the most direct and simple, and as such was adopted." 

In pursuance of the recommendation, the trustees employed S. B. Dole to 
draft a bill and it was presented to the legislature by W. H. Rice, but the legis- 
lature was defeated by the combined influence of the liquor interests and King 
Kalakaua, who made common cause with them. 

LIQUOR AND ROYAL POLITICS. 

It was about this time that free liquor in enormous quantities became the 
most prominent feature in support of the so-called Royal ticket for the legisla- 
ture. The method of securing liquor for this purpose at no cost to the poli- 
ticians, as subsequently appeared upon the records of the court in connection 
with a criminal prosecution for defrauding the Treasury, was as follows: 

The King had the privilege of importing liquors, for royal use, free of 
duty. In abuse of this privilege he issued orders upon the custom house for 
the admission of free liquor to an amount which furnished not only all that 
was required for the Royal use, but, in addition thereto, all that was needed 
for debauching the electorate at elections for representatives to the legisla- 
ture, and, in addition thereto, enough more liquor, the duties on which thus 
remitted, paid for all that had been furnished to the King and for use at the 
elections. 

LIQUOR BY THE TUBFULL. 

The liquor used at the election of the legislature which abolished the law 
prohibiting sales of liquor to native Hawaiians was not by the bottle but by the 
tubfull. 

The writer personally attended a royal electioneering meeting at the foot- 
of Queen street one evening, at which galvanized wash tubs, holding approxi- 
mately twenty gallons each, were filled with gin which had been emptied from 
the bottles, which was being ladled out with a soup ladle into tumblers and 
furnished free in unlimited quantities to all comers. There were several 
thousand natives present, mostly in a maudlin condition; and upon my entry 
to the grounds, I was met by one of the leading candidates on the Royal ticket, 
who welcomed me, urging me to have a drink, saying: "Come over here and' 
see my dead soldiers," pointing to a row of some dozen natives lying insensible; 
alongside of a partly empty tub of gin. 



12 

THE PLANTERS' TRUSTEES REPORT. 

In the report by the trustees to the annual meeting of the Planters' Asso- 
ciation, in October, 1882, the trustees referred to their action in this connection 
as follows: 

"When the board of trustees first received the trust committed to their 
hands the country was upon the eve of the biennial session of the legislature. 
Among the instructions given to the board was an order to use the influence 
and moral support of the sugar planters of the Islands as expressed by unani- 
mous vote in favor of prohibition of alcoholic beverages. This question was 
brought before the legislature, and the trustees secured the services of a promi- 
nent lawyer to draft a prohibitory bill; but notwithstanding the unanimous 
support of the most intelligent members of the legislature, and the moral effect 
of favorable petitions from all parts of the country, the matter was decided 
by the passage and approval of an act commonly known as 'The Free Liquor 
Bill/ " 

At the annual meeting of the Planters' Association, held iu October, 1882, 
the following trustees were elected: S. T. Alexander, W. G. Irwin, J. H. Patv, 
J. 0. Glade, A. S. Hartwell, F. A. Schaefer, P. C. Jones, T. H. Davies, E. P. 
Adams, G. X. Wilcox, Z. S. Spalding, J. B. Atherton and W. H. Bailey. 

EXTENSION OF LICENSES TO OTHER ISLANDS. 

Up to March, 1883, retail liquor licenses had been issued for Honolulu only. 
The authority for issuing them in other districts was vested in the minister of 
the interior, subject to the control of the privy council, a body nominated by 
the King. Without preliminary notice of their intention so to do, a meeting 
of the privy council was held, members from the country having been sum- 
moned to Honolulu for the express purpose, and passed a resolution authorizing 
the minister of the interior to issue liquor licenses for the country districts. 

PLANTERS PROTEST AGAINST EXTENSION OF LICENSES. 

The trustees of the Planters' Company, together with a number of other 
leading members of the company, held a special meeting on March 23, 1883, to 
discuss this subject, and adopted a unanimous resolution protesting against the 
issuing of such licenses, addressing the following communication to the then 
minister of the interior, Charles T. Gulick: 
"To His Excellency, Chas. T. Gulick, Minister of the Interior: 

"Sir: — We are informed that His Majesty, by and with the consent of 
His Privy Council, has authorized }'our Excellency to, in your discretion, issue 
licenses for the sale of spirituous liquors in certain districts of the Kingdom, 
in which there are now no licensed liquor dealers, and that the issuing of such 
licenses is contemplated by your Excellency. 

"While we disclaim any desire to improperly interfere with your Excel- 
lency's judgment in the matter, and in no wise impugn the motives of His Ma- 
jesty or the Privy Council, by reason of such authorization, we feel that the 
importance of the question demands the most earnest consideration on the part 
of your Excellency and warrants our addressing you in the matter. 

"On behalf of the Planters' Labor and Supply Company, of the material 
interest of the planters, whom we represent, and of what we believe to be the 
best interests both moral and material of the community at large, we hereby 
urge upon your Excellency with all possible strength, that in the exercise of 
that discretion with which the law invests you, you may refuse to issue such 
licenses. 

"We would call your attention to the following resolution, unanimously 
adopted by the members of the Planters' Labor and Supply Company on the 
25th of March, 1882, viz: 



13 

" 'That the Board of Trustees be recommended to use their utmost en- 
deavors to secure the passage of a law totally prohibiting the importation and 
sale of all spirituous or intoxicating liquors, except for medicinal and mechanical 
purposes, and that the Board of Trustees be further requested to consider what 
means are necessary for the better enforcement of the existing laws against the 
manufacture of liquor.' 

"The reason for the adoption of such a resolution exists today as it did 
then, but in an increased degree. 

"Bepresenting as we do, men of many nationalities and opinions, we base 
our request not upon moral grounds as to the propriety or otherwise of using 
intoxicating liquors, but upon the universal experience of planters of all na- 
tionalities and ox)inions. that the use of intoxicating liquors is in a high degree 
detrimental to the efficiency and welfare of the laborer, and injurious to the 
planter, and upon the firm and earnest conviction that the issuance of the licenses 
referred to would be a dire disaster to the sugar industry of these islands which 
is now struggling for its existence. 

""Without reference to the fatal effect which the unrestrained use of intoxi- 
cating liquor would have upon the already rapidly disappearing Hawaiian race, 
which is a matter more especially for the consideration of His Majesty's gov- 
ernment, we would represent to your Excellency that the constant experience 
of all planters is. that the use of intoxicating liquor exercises upon labor the 
most demoralizing of any influence with which they have to contend. 

"That in the present condition of the sugar market, anything which tends 
to increase the burden upon the staple industry of the country should be avoided. 

"That it is our firm conviction founded upon observation and experience- 
that the establishing of licensed liquor saloons in proximity to plantation? 
would cause a great increase in the consumption of intoxicating liquors, and 
would in every way exercise a demoralizing influence upon laborers and inflict 
incalculable injury upon the planting industry. 

"So tar therefore from pursuing a course which will increase the already 
serious detriment to planters which the lax enforcement of the law against 
illicit liquor dealers causes, we would urge upon your Excellency not only that 
no licenses be issued for the sale of liquor in districts where plantations are 
situated, but that increased efforts be made to enforce the present law against 
illicit liquor dealers. 

"Eequesting and believing that this matter may receive your grave con- 
sideration." 

Xo attention was paid to this protest and licenses were issued throughout 
the country districts, chiefly to political favorites or where they would do the 
most good from the standpoint of political influence. 

PROHIBITION IN COUNTRY DISTRICTS IN 1887. 

In December, 1887, the legislature passed an act prohibiting the further 
granting of licenses in districts other than Honolulu, but permitting those al- 
ready issued to run until the date of their expiration. 

The premable of the act is as follows: 

"Whereas, the experience of the past four years has proved that the grant- 
ing of licenses for the sale of spirituous liquors at retail in the various districts 
of this Kingdom, is productive of evil results and does not prevent the illicit 
sale of such liquors, therefore be it enacted - * * 

"It shall not be lawful hereafter to grant any license or licenses for the 
vending of spirituous liquors at retail in any district of the Hawaiian King- 
dom other than the District of Honolulu, in the Island of Oahu. ' 9 

The King refused to sign the act, although unanimously advised to do so 
by the cabinet, and the legislature declared the act to be law without his 
signature. 



14 

I had thought to give a synopsis of the progress of liquor legislation up to 
the present time; but it would be too long and is not necessary to a compre- 
hension of the present situation. 

The question before us is: 

DO WE WANT PROHIBITION IN HAWAII ? 

I must confess, that personally I have not, until recently, given any particu- 
lar thought to the subject. Such a thing as Federal prohibition being a possi- 
bility had not seriously occurred to me; and its impossibility through local 
sources was so manifest that the subject was theoretical only. 

Observation of the working of the liquor laws; of the methods and prin- 
ciples of the controlling spirit engaged in the liquor business in Hawaii and of 
the effect of liquor upon the people of Hawaii, have convinced me that the best 
interests of this Territory would be subserved by abolishment of the retail 
saloons. 

HAWAIIANS ARE DOOMED UNLESS PROHIBITION IS ENACTED. 

It is generally admitted, and is a matter of demonstration, that the con- 
sumption of alcoholic liquor is responsible more than all other causes put to- 
gether, for the rapid decline of the Hawaiian race; that it is destroying them 
in a constantly accelerating degree and that they are doomed unless prohibition 
is enacted and enforced. 

That the retail saloon is the most potent element in accomplishing the de- 
struction of the race is also beyond question. 

AN EVER PRESENT TEMPTATION. 

There is scarcely a locality in Honolulu where the main body of laborers 
work, from which they can pass to their homes on pay day without encounter- 
ing the fumes of whiskey as they proceed along the street; an invitation which 
is irresistible to many. 

Hawaiians of all nationalities, and more particularly the native Hawaiians, 
are sociable and generous to a fault. Once in the sociable atmosphere 
of a bar room, treat follows treat, and drink follows drink, until the inevitable 
result follows. 

If the temptations of the saloon were withdrawn, so that its smells, sounds 
and sights did not constantly appeal to the passerby, there would be far less 
inclination to drink than is now the case. 

BLIND PIGS. 

The argument is constantly presented that if retail saloons are abolished, 
blind pigs will spring up all over the land; that more liquor will be consumed 
through these sources than through the saloons; that the consumption of liquor 
will be unregulated instead of being under the surveillance of the police, and 
drunkenness and crime will, therefore, be multiplied. 

The utter fallacy of the claim that abolition of the retail saloon will con- 
duce to the establishment of blind pigs, is evidenced by the fact that there are 
registered on the Federal records over 300 blind pigs in the Territory, the 
owners of which are paying an annual license to the federal internal revenue 
collector while holding no license from the Territorial government, and operating 
in defiance of the Territorial law. How many more there are no one knows. 
The blind pig is already here, wallowing in unrestrained multiplicity of numbers. 

As to the proposition that more liquor would be sold through blind pigs 
than through licensed saloons, the strange fact is that practically every dealer 
favors the licensed saloons. 



15 

LIQUOR DEALERS BUSINESS IS TO SELL LIQUOR. 

It is in no hostile criticism to say that the liquor dealers' business is to 
sell liquor. The more liquor sold the more profit and the liquor dealer is in 
business for the same purpose that the rest of the community are. If there 
were more profit to the liquor dealer under an abolition of retail licenses he 
would most certainly be bringing every influence to bear in favor of the doing 
away of the saloons. As, on the contrary, he is always and everywhere using 
his most strenuous efforts against abolition of the retail saloon, it is logical that 
he believes, that less liquor will be sold if retail licenses are abolished than 
under a license law. 

The argument that more liquor will be consumed through blind pigs than 
through licensed saloons may be dismissed as puerile and utterly unworthy of 
consideration. Prohibition does not, and never will, prevent the consumption 
of liquor; but if adequately enforced it can greatly diminish it. 

CAN PROHIBITION OF THE RETAIL SALOON BE SECURED LOCALLY ? 

It is argued that prohibition should be sought through the local legislature; 
that it is a local question and should be settled locally. The liquor dealers are 
smitten with admiration for the local voter and glibly proclaim their fealty 
to the shibboleth of "home rule, ;? and a willingness to submit to the will of the 
majority. 

I do not believe that prohibition, or even local option, can be secured 
locally. 

We saw at the last session of the legislature, a local option bill turned 
down, and every liquor vote helped to do it. Believing, as the liquor dealers 
do, that prohibition of the saloon would break up their business, the intro- 
duction of the question into our local politics would absolutely disrupt all 
parties and tickets and result in the blacklisting by the liquor dealers of every 
man who favored prohibition or even gave evidence of independence. They 
would use money freely, and bring pressure to bear, as they have in the past, 
to influence elections, and votes in the legislature. 

THE LIQUOR DEALERS AND JOHN HUGHES. 

As an example of the ways and means pursued by the liquor dealers toward 
any man whose influence or independence they fear, is their treatment of John 
Hughes at the last election. 

There is no more honest, square-dealing, reliable or representative man in 
this community than John Hughes. He was regularly nominated on the Ee- 
publican ticket for the senate and there was no reason why he should not have 
been elected at the head of the poll but for the fact that in one of his addresses 
he announced, in substance, that he should vote in the legislature as he thought 
right, irrespective of the desires of the liquor interests; one of the planks in 
the Eepublican platform being that there should be no radical amendment of 
the existing liquor law, and there being a suggestion that the liquor interests 
would attempt to secure amendments in spite of that plank. 

As illustrative of the methods which the liquor dealers will stoop to, is the 
fact that John Hughes, although a Catholic, is a broad enough one to address 
the Y. M. C. A. The liquor dealers sent messengers through the districts to 
canvass the Catholic voters and tell them that Hughes was an apostate; that he 
had joined the Protestants and that, therefore, he should not be voted for. 

On election day they made a specialty of posting representatives at every 
polling place in the county leading members and employes of the liquor dealers' 
association being among them, who worked all day long specifically for the 
defeat of Hughes, interviewing, arguing and urging by every means in their 
power that he should not be elected. The result was his defeat. And for 
W r hat? Not for advocating prohibition, or even for local option, but simply 



16 

for announcing his independence. I am glad to say that I believe that this act 
on the part of the liquor dealers' association is one of the nails which will ulti- 
mately fasten down the coffin cover on their business. 

THE LIQUOR DEALERS IN THE LEGISLATURE. 

What the liquor dealers accomplished in the senate at its meeting last year 
we all know. In spite of the fact that the Eepublicans had the overwhelming 
control of that body; that a formal plank in the ^Republican platform pledged 
the party to make no radical amendment to the liquor law, the liquor inte-rests 
succeeded in forcing through the senate a bill radically liberalizing the law in 
the interests of the greater sale of liquor; after narrowly failing to pass a much 
wider law, and every liquor member voted for it. They squirmed and explained 
and equivocated; but they voted for it. 

What means they took to accomplish this result we cannot prove, but every 
citizen can imagine for himself. 

A LESSON TO THE COMMUNITY. 

The result is a lesson to this community, however, that should not be soon 
forgotten, and that is that a liquor man cannot be trusted in the senate, and 
that it will be practically impossible to pass a local prohibition law through our 
legislature, even if a legislature could be elected pledged to such policy; and 
further, in view of the character of our electorate and of the character and 
methods of the liquor dealers who control the policy of the fraternity here, I 
do not for a moment believe that a prohibition legislature could be elected. 

DO WE WANT FEDERAL PROHIBITION"? 

If this question had been asked me a few weeks ago, I should have said, 
No; or at least I should not have said, "Yes ?; ; but in view of the many evils 
incident to the retail liquor business in Hawaii; in view of the utter inability 
of the local authorities to close the blind pigs or secure conviction for violators 
of the law; judging the future by the past, and the past demonstrating that the 
aggressive element among the liquor dealing fraternity is unscrupulous as to 
means and insatiable in its demands for further opportunity to increase the busi- 
ness; in view of the fact that federal prohibition has not been proposed at our in- 
stance but has come out of a clear sky at the instance of others, I, for one, do not 
feel like opposing it; and feel it my duty to do what little I can to help it 
along now that it seems possible of accomplishment. 

OBJECTIONS TO FEDERAL PROHIBITION. 

Many objections are made to federal prohibition, only two or three of which 
seem to be worth a reply. 

INFRINGEMENT OF RIGHT OF SELF-GOVERNMENT. 

The first objection is that it will be an infringement upon our rights of 
local self-government. 

This objection, it appears to me, to be utterly without foundation. 

A federal law prohibits the use of opium in Hawaii. Is there anyone who 
for a minute claims that this is an infringement upon our local rights, any more 
than is the collection of duties or the assessment of internal revenue or federal 
income tax? 

The federal statute known as the Edmunds Act, is enforced here through 
the Federal Court. Does anyone feel that our local rights are infringed upon 
thereby? 

It is common knowledge that the Territorial law against illicit cohabita- 
tion was a dead letter, and that a bare note from the federal district attorney 
caused social cataclysms in some society circles. 



17 

Is our manhood affronted thereby ? Are we any worse off morally or 
politically than before? 

SOUTHERN ZEAL FOR HOME RULE. 

It is well known that the people of the southern states are almost fanatical 
in their zeal for "home rule/' for exclusively local control of social questions 
and police regulation; that the proposition to extend the jurisdiction of the 
national board of health to cover epidemic diseases encountered furious opposi- 
tion, as an "entering wedge" for federal aggression, etc., etc. 

An unreconstructed minority still mutter under their breath about the 
growing power of the federal government; the sapping of local institutions and 
the dangers of centralization; but since the last visitation of yellow fever to 
New Orleans, the local shotgun quarantine that paralyzed business; the abortive 
attempts at local disinfection and control and the panic that was created in 
Gulf and adjacent States; federal control of health conditions, with its quiet 
firmness and its complete efficiency is as welcome in New Orleans as it is in 
Mobile and Atlanta. 

CALIFORNIA'S EXAMPLE. 

Again, California is jealous to the last degree of the doctrine of local con- 
trol. We saw only a year or so ago that she was willing to risk embroiling the 
nation with a foreign government over a handful of Japanese school children, 
in her determination to maintain local control of her local social status and 
conditions. 

We also saw her mercantile associations and press hound out of office 
and out of the State, an able and efficient federal quarantine officer because 
he officially reported the presence of bubonic plague in San Francisco and at- 
tempted to eradicate it. 

We remember how the State board of health refuted his report and 
paralyzed his efforts; and we also remember how within the two years last 
past that same community voluntarily placed the whole subject absolutely in the 
hands of the federal authorities, raised hundreds of thousands of dollars by 
subscription to be spent at the sweet will of the national authorities, and fairly 
ate out of the hand of the chief quarantine officer, while he quietly, speedily 
and effectively rooted out the disease and made a clean city of what was 
rapidly becoming a plague spot! 

CALIFORNIA PEOPLE NOT DEGENERATING. 

Are the people of California degenerating in their moral fibre? 

Are the people of the Southern States and California abandoning their 
desire for independence, and weakening in their adherence to the principle of 
local self-government? 

They are not! They have recognized that circumstances alter cases; that 
forms of government and means and methods of applying them, are means to 
an end, and that end the greatest good to the greatest number. 

FANATICAL OPPOSITION. 

A man who picks out one principle of government, regardless of its con- 
text and surrounding conditions, and blindly reiterates his adherence thereto, 
even though such adherence kills citizens, wrecks homes, multiplies the diffi- 
culties and negatives the objects of government, is not helping the cause of self- 
government. He is defeating it. He is a fanatic who worships the shadow in 
place of the substance. He is on a par with the religious strict constructionists 
who maintain that every word of the Bible, that most allegorical of books, is 
literally true; who believes that literal belief in the thirty-nine articles is neces- 
sary to salvation; and that by a merciful interposition of providence, one of the 



18 

divine pleasures of motherhood in the future life, is to gaze down from the bat- 
tlements of heaven upon the souls of their babies who died unbaptised, writhing 
in torment in the fires of hell. 

GOVERNMENT IS A MEANS TO AN END. 

Again I say, "Government is a means to an end, and that end the greatest 
good to the greatest number. ' ' 

Whether that end is to be secured through the federal, territorial or 
county, or some other medium of government, is an entirely subordinate question. 

It is the old proposition over again, enunciated by Christ when he said, 
"the Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath." 

The local application of that text is that "forms of government were made 
for man, and not man for forms of government. ' ' 

If a certain supreme benefit to the community can be obtained through one 
form of government better than through another, it is strength and not weak- 
ness; it is wisdom and not foolishness; it is progress and not retrogression to 
emulate the example of California and the South, and secure it, through the 
surest and most efficient medium, regardless of the name by which it is called. 

We cannot afford to wrangle over theories of government, while men, women 
and children are dying and the existence of a race is at stake. 

A HERRING ACROSS THE SCENT. 

I cannot but feel that the argument that federal prohibition will be an in- 
vasion of the principle of self-government is a herring drawn across the scent, to 
distract attention from a discussion of the merits of the issue. 

"The hand is that of Jacob; but the voice is that of Esau." 

The "hand" is that of a purported patriotic citizen, resisting at all 
hazards, encroachment upon his rights; but the "voice" giving vent to these 
sentiments has a remarkable resemblance to that of the liquor interests seeking 
to perpetuate its business. 

The speciousness of the patriotic appeal has misled many who are in prin- 
ciple prohibitionists, and who, but for the obscuring of the issue by this 
cunning argument would strenuously favor federal prohibition. 

"Whenever the real issue of interference with local self-government is raised 
will be time enough to come to its rescue. 

PROHIBITION CAN BE ENFORCED. 

It is said that a prohibition law cannot be enforced, federal or otherwise. 
From the way in which other federal laws are enforced, as compared with the 
enforcement of territorial statutes covering the same subject, I believe that 
federal prohibition can and will be enforced, at least as well as other federal 
statutes, for the following reasons: 

(1) The federal court and federal executive officers have a higher standing 
in the general opinion of the community, and federal laws receive more respect 
than do territorial laws. It may be that this should not be so, but it is a fact. 

(2) Officials who have the execution of local laws are subject to local 
election and it is human nature that they should, to a greater or less extent, 
have their ears to the ground to ascertain the wishes of powerful constituents, 
and defer to their wishes and private interests. 

The federal executive officials are controlled by no such local influences. 

(3) Juries of the territorial court are drawn from the immediate locality 
where the offenses are alleged to have been committed, and local politics and 
friendly relations cut a large figure in verdicts in such cases as liquor prosecu- 
tions. 



19 

Federal juries, on the other hand, are drawn from the territory as a whole, 
and are therefore much more free from these local influences. Moreover federal 
juries being fewer in number, there is a wider field from which to draw'and the 
average character and intelligence of federal juries is higher than that of the 
territorial juries. 

(4) This is a small and isolated territory, and liquor is bulky and easily 
discovered. Prohibition can be- enforced by an active, efficient government 
easier than in any other locality under the American flag. 

PROPOSED RESTRICTION OF PROHIBITION TO NATIVE HAWAIIANS. 

It is suggested by some as a kind of compromise that, as the greatest suf- 
ferers from intoxicants in Hawaii, are native Hawaiians, the law might be 
made applicable to them alone. 

In the first place, the difficulty of deciding who a Hawaiian is, presents a 
practical question, which is enough in itself to discredit this proposition. 

Some of the Southern States have enacted laws to the effect that a person 
who has negro blood in his veins to the amount of one-thirty-second is a negro. 

If we have a prohibition law for native Hawaiians, a necessary sorallary 
will be a law defining what percentage of Hawaiian blood constitutes a native 
Hawaiian. 

A generation which is fifteen-sixteenths white is already arising, and mixed 
bloods of all degrees are rapidly increasing. 

A law which requires investigation of a man's pedigree for five genera- 
tions back, before it can be decided whether a certain act is convivial hospi- 
tality or a criminal offense does not commend itself to common sense. 

NO SPECIAL PROHIBITION POSSIBLE. 

We may as well stop discussing side issues and stop gaps, and face the fact 
that the time has gone by when neither native Hawaiian citizens nor citizens of 
any other derivative origin will be singled out to be legislated, either for or 
against, on a basis of who their great-great-grandfathers were. 

For better or for worse, the native Hawaiians are one with us in rights, 
duties and privileges of citizenship. If liquor is to be free, it will be free to 
all; and if it is to be prohibited ,it will be prohibited to all, be their grand- 
fathers Anglo-Saxon, Latin, Mongolian or Polynesian. 

But, while I doubt if any responsible person or organization will propose 
to enact prohibition to be applied solely to the native Hawaiians, after the 
merits of the proposition are duly considered, I strongly urge that in this his 
native land and by necessity his only home, the rights and interests of the 
native Hawaiian should stand at the fore front in the consideration of the sub- 
ject; and that we should give him a last chance of survival, while doing the 
rest of the community a service and giving real self-government an chance to 
operate, free from the baleful and ever present influence of a purely selfish 
interest. 



\m\mm\ 0F C0NGRESS < 

027279 728 6 



